The Cinematography Thread.

bump!



Rick McCallum loves cinematography!

 

I don't know what to say here, but when i'm watching something for example, I'll see a sequence of shots that just fit together perfectly and go "I never would have thought of that", or something to that effect.

 

What are your guys' opinions on the IndiSystems stuff? The rods don't seem that appealing to me, and I was going to go with this rod set from Redrock, but does anyone have opinions on Indi's follow focus and matte box?

 

This is actually a very difficult question, I think, to discuss beyond one's own opinion because a filmmaker's cinematography style is actually affected by a LOT of things.

A small handful of things that could have a complete, total, start-to-finish, influence (or even complete control) over a filmmaker's visual language would include things like:

1) The films they watched while they were growing up

2) The films that have given them strong, emotional reactions and their respective cinematography

3) The MEDIUM in which they watched their films - i.e. television or the local cinema

4) The kinds of shots they prefer when they're shooting on the day (i.e. what looks good on the monitor), but doesn't actually correlate to how they original saw things in their heads

5) The suggestions their cinematographer may throw at them as better or more interesting ways to shoot a scene

6) What kind of relationship the director has with his cinematographer (do they worship them, are they scared of them, do they distrust them?)

7) Whether or not the filmmaker is intending his shots to look their best on the BIG SCREEN or the small screen

8) The kind of work they've done in the past - commercials, music videos, amateur movies, short films, fan films

9) What sort of aspect ratio they prefer to work in and what sort of aspect ratio they've worked with in the past

10) Are they experimenting with new techniques and new ideas that they've seen other filmmakers do?


I mean this is just a HANDFUL of things that influence someone when they're filming a scene. There are many more - I mean some filmmakers have histories as photographers or painters or artists. Others have backgrounds in reading comic books or technical drawing skills. Some filmmakers have worn glasses all their life - this alone could affect how they see the world and what they regard as "engaging, emotionally vibrant" cinematography. Some directors meticulously storyboard out everything...and other director's actually, simply, honestly, DON'T CARE AT ALL and let their cinematographer worry about how to shoot the scene so long as their actors are doing their job correctly.

In the end, there is no real answer sadly.

It's a lot like asking why does James Cameron use blue-light for so much of his work?

[image=http://www.cyberpunkreview.com/images/t2-05.jpg]

Or why was John McTiernan so taken with subjective camera moves in Dutch cinema that he littered it all throughout "Die Hard" and made it popular in Hollywood?

[image=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v631/nealnz/dhard1.jpg] [image=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v631/nealnz/dhard2.jpg] [image=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v631/nealnz/dhard3.jpg] [image=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v631/nealnz/dhard4.jpg]

Why did The Wachowski Brothers frame all of their close-ups in "The Matrix Trilogy" so they cut people's foreheads off?

[image=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v631/nealnz/matrix.jpg]

Why the hell was Stanley Kubrick SO obsessed with center-framing and zooming instead of moving the camera?

[image=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v631/nealnz/clockwork.jpg]

Why does Ridley Scott like working with smoke so much in his films?

[image=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v631/nealnz/brun.jpg]

Why does Tony Scott keep using those grad-filters for shots of the sky and such aggressive color-grades?

[image=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v631/nealnz/topgun.jpg]

Why does Peter Jackson use wide-angle lenses for all his close-ups?

[image=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v631/nealnz/kong.jpg]

Why did David Fincher choose to leave the silver-nitrate layer on the prints of "SE7EN", thus foreshadowing Hollywood's upcoming obsession with the bleach-bypass look?

[image=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v631/nealnz/seven.jpg]

Why does Tim Burton almost always use a 1.85: 1 aspec

 

So glad this thread is back.

 

While you do have a point there NZPoe, and certainly many screenshots to demonstrate individual aspects, that's not really what I meant. This isn't meant to be an argument about rules or the lack thereof. I intended to discuss things such as lighting, camera moves, camera angles, etc. and the emotion they convey. For example, let us look at the genre of film noir. Why do high contrast, black and white images convey such a strong feel? Or, flip it the other way. Let's take an oversaturated, high key scene, such as is common in many flashback scenes. Why does this convey a certain feel? If you're going to dolly in on a character's face, what does this mean?

There are many answers, some which are subjective. However, there are general guidelines that are relevant in today's day and age for conveying certain emotions within your story to the audience. That's the point. You're trying to get your audience to feel something. To beat a dead horse just one more time, Michael Bay works hard to convey full out action and excitement. His method of storytelling does convey that. But what if you want to portray a drama using such heavy handed techniques? Will it carry the same emotion? No. That's what I wanted to spark a bit here. Some conversation on what works to build an emotional attachment between your characters and the audience. This is why so many fan films fail to be truly engaging and largely forgettable. This is not meant as simply a jab at such attempts, for I recognize the efforts that go into making even a small film. It is meant to raise the bar for all of us who aspire to make films.

 

I understand what you're saying and my answer does - in part - answer it on some aspect.

In the end, if you're going to dissect cinematic conventions down to how it ACTUALLY AFFECTS the audience, then you're moving into the realms of clinical psychology, sociology and anthropology...which I don't think is your meaning.

In terms of my answer above - taste still comes greatly into it, because good and bad taste certainly go a long way to define good and bad films.

How Stanley Kubrick and Ridley Scott use cinematic technique to emotionally engage you with a character are VASTLY DIFFERENT, but given the success of their films (in general), one assumes they're doing something RIGHT in their taste that someone like good ole' Michael Bay isn't.

But I do understand where you're coming from.

Let's break it down more specifically I suppose and maybe some of my input can give you something to build on...

Well there is a danger in this line of thought, because it would be a fallacy to assume that cinematography is the sole reason why bad films are bad or even why some people fail to connect with Michael Bay movies.

There are many other things to consider - the writing, the acting, the editing, usage of music, scene-blocking, casting, etc etc etc. It is one of the reasons that Michael Bay's films are so frustrating to so many film buffs who dislike his work - because often his movies contain well-executed elements that should ADD UP to gripping drama, but don't. Its for this very reason why people take apart specific movies, hold up the various bits to the light, turn them over, and try to figure out where the machine of the movie went wrong.

I mean look at the President's Speech in "Armageddon"....I loathe Michael Bay to no ends and frankly "Armageddon" is a putrid turd of a film for me, but THIS IS THE SINGLE GREATEST SPEECH I'VE EVER SEEN DELIVERED BY A MOVIE PRESIDENT!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB_ZlORvD4c&feature=related&fmt=18

In fact...for the sake of discussion, lets look at this now - argued from a confirmed and rabid Michael Bay hater.

Firstly let's have a squizz at the script for this speech delivered by said nameless El Presidente:

"I address you tonight not as the President of the United States, not as the leader of a country, but as a citizen of humanity.

We are faced with the very gravest of challenges. The Bible calls this day "Armageddon" - the end of all things. And yet, for the first time in the history of the planet, a species has the technology to prevent its own extinction.

All of you praying with us need to know that everything that can be done to prevent this disaster is being called into service. The human thirst for excellence, knowledge; every step up the ladder of science; every adventurous reach into space; all of our combined modern technologies and imaginations; even the wars that we've fought have provided us the tools to wage this terrible battle.

Through all of the chaos that is our history; through all of the wrongs and the discord; through all of the pain and suffering; through all of our times, there is one thing that has nourished our souls, and elevated our species above its origins, and that is our courage.

The dreams of an entire planet are focused tonight on those fourteen brave souls traveling into the heavens. And may we all, citizens the world over, see these events through. God speed, and go

 

Case in point for pure, raw, unbridled, jaw-dropping, singular, talent:

Not a fan film, but definitely an amateur project - created ENTIRELY by ONE person and his Mac. Soundtrack provided by his girlfriend.

ONE, SINGLE, PERSON made this all by themselves!

Part One
Part Two
Part Three

Now THAT is talent.

 

While there are many aspects that go into making a film good (or conversely, not good), the reason I was aiming for discussion on cinematography is because that's what this thread focuses on. Your bullet points which break down the Speech sequence are more what I had in mind. Something that can help people understand how to use good cinematography to better their film. While what you say about content and style is true, it's not the focus of this discussion.

With that said, how can this thread empower a young teenager with access only to a small, single-CCD camera that shoots in SD to make a film they are proud of? Of course it takes planning and preparation, but it can be done. I am not a young teenager nor do I shoot with a consumer camera. This isn't for me. But there is knowledge here that can be conveyed to those who seek it. Not just the esoteric and abstract, but practical information that can help others along.

With that said, might we discuss some aspects of lighting? And not just the typical "500 Watt Halogen Work Lights" that are usually used. How about using natural light, or light bounced from another source? How have you lit your films with less than professional equipment in a manner that looked professional? Anyone have some of their own samples they could offer? We can evaluate Hollywood films all day but unless there is a practical way to emulate that level of production value how does it apply?

 

I think everyone who tried to make worklights look professional is learning backwards. You will learn much more about what you want to do if you actually get some experience with professional lights first, say, at a public access TV station, so you have something to work towards with your cheaper lights (EX: "Oh, well, I remember those lamps I dealt with in the studio had little blue ropes to hang a coil of power cord on. I'll go get some rope and try to make the same thing.")

 

Time to resurrect this thread again....

POST YOUR TOP TEN FAVOURITE SHOTS (and tell us why)

[image=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v631/nealnz/Beautiful%20Framing/1.jpg]

BLADE RUNNER: The Final Cut - one of the rarest things to ever happen to me, in my life, is to see a shot in a movie that literally makes my brain go "huh-whaaaaaaa???". When I was 13 years old, watching "Blade Runner" for the first time on a 13-inch color-TV in bed...this shot made me do just that. On a 13-inch television. I think if I saw this in the cinemas, I might have died of an aneurysm! This beautiful, near perfect, optical effect created by a hundred motion-control passes made over tens of elements is one of the most incredible images in cinema history. And how it creeps up to you - after a long and quiet, white-on-black, opening title sequences and gradually encroacing soundtrack - all of which explodes into life when this shot rapidly fades in...nothing, not even the Star Destroyer at the beginning of Episode IV, can capture your attention like this shot can.


[image=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v631/nealnz/Beautiful%20Framing/2.jpg]

RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK - one of my favourite sequences in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and one of my favourite shots in the entire quadrology! Something that's very important for me - in filmmaking - is ensuring that any pivotal moment that a sequence or scene is building up to should be presented with the most optimal visual aesthetic. The moment when the sun passes through the headpiece of the Staff of Ra to reveal the Well of the Souls is such a moment. The film has been building up to this moment from the very first time Indy meets the government officials back in America. It's arguably one of the three most pivotal moments of the whole film (the other two being the reveal of the Ark and the opening of the Ark). This shot represents EVERYTHING that the film has been building up to at this point...and the shot does NOT disappoint. Spielberg and DOP Douglas Slocombe represent this moment in a single, all-encompassing, shot and its elements are astonishing. Other directors would probably show this moment using three or four shots, showing the path of the light travelling - but Spielberg here chooses to show it all in one wide shot. He decides to show us the whole geography of the setup to help us understand how the staff and the sun and the miniature city works as a whole. Note the strong lines of convergence that draws your eye to Indy, frame-left, with the sun strike placed above him and the sun-ray leading your eye down to the miniature city. Note the semi-circular lenticular effect of the sunstrike on the crystal - optically created in post - which suggests that you're seeing a visible section of a larger, invisible, circular halo that surrounds the entire hole from which the sun is coming. Note the atmospheric lighting of the chamber, the deliberate absence of white in the room so that Indy stands out even more, the wide-angle lens used to show the vastness of the chamber in comparison to Indy's size. Fantastic filmmaking!


[image=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v631/nealnz/Beautiful%20Framing/3.jpg]

A CLOCKWORK ORANGE - Undoubtedly one of the most unusual and memorable facial closeups ever, this early moment from Kubrick's 'A Clockwork Orange' exemplifies many of Kubrick's stylistic traits and talents. This strange method of showing Alex's face in profile, extreme close-up with a harsh backlight, staring creepily down frame, but through the tops of his eyes, creates an uneasy sense of dread and heightens Alex's sociopathic power over the homeless bum that he's terrorizing. The feeling is almost voyueristic, since Alex's eyes never hit the camera lens, but all the more terrifying because you can almost see what is coming, but feel powerless to stop it. Kubrick contrasts this with the backlight which gives Alex's skin a glowing quality - possibly to contrast his youth against the bum's old age? This shot may not look like much on your scr

 

Very good choices there... I ought to check this thread out more. The Blade Runner one is interesting to me, because I was struck the very same way. That film has a lot of shots that were truly thought out and held so much meaning in them. Every time I watch that movie, I understand something else, which is also cool. Here is mine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RTRKQkoQHg
THX-1138's final scene
The final scene, where THX stand in the sunset. Absolutely stunning. I think its amazingness also lends itself to the buildup before it. He truly has nowhere to go, and so just seeing this figure stand there in what is considered one of the most beautiful sights, he has no reason to love it. There is nothing for him there. And he can't go back, because he will surely be crucified for all the damage he's done. And the music really helps this scene too, it just really creates such a buildup for a simple scene. And then the credits roll? And your just shocked. Its like: ...whoa. What just happened? What now? What's next? This shot is my favorite of all time. And when you lay it side by side, next to Luke watching the sun's set, its like: the one guy has nothing going for him, and the other has an amazing journey ahead of him... Maybe I'm thinking too much into this stuff

 

I can't think of my favorite ten off the top of my head so here is one, which is actually a sequences of shots from City of God.

[image=http://www.freefactory.net/forum/timetable/city-of-god.jpg]

It plays through the life of Lil Ze from his childhood to his young adulthood from the POV of his poor victims, which I think was a brilliant way of going through time for someone who was a psychotic killer.

View scene here. The sequence I'm talking about starts are 2:16.

 

Hey. I'm sorry, I have three idiot-like and ignorant-ish questions that I'm not sure will fit properly into this thread. First, can someone tell me what movie PSAs are? Second, what's the Indiana Jones Hat Theory? And third, what's a Theater Fag?


Thanks




Yeah... I've been listening to Geekza...

 

Can you discuss the aspect ratio differences of Empire and Jedi. You discussed the lighting but never the aspect ratio, I don't think.

 

Empire and Jedi are both shot in 2.35:1 aspect ratio, so I'm not sure what you mean by its differences. Are you referring to how they USED the 2.35:1 frame in each film and how they used them differently?

These were my thoughts on the framing in my original post:

[image=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v631/nealnz/SW%20Cinematography/sw2.jpg] [image=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v631/nealnz/SW%20Cinematography/sw6.jpg]
[image=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v631/nealnz/SW%20Cinematography/rotj7.jpg] [image=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v631/nealnz/SW%20Cinematography/rotj6.jpg]
Here are a series of establishing shots. Notice how the ESB shots (top) use the entire width of the frame and the expansiveness, given by the lens, to show the room and the scenery? Also take note of the colors as well. Compare this with the JEDI shots (bottom) which force the eye to focus only on what's in the center of the frame, thereby deadening the impact of the shot in of itself? You barely have time to notice the shuttle landed in the background because you're too busy concentrating on the poorly framed Han Solo and Rebel Soldiers marching on the bottom of the frame. Would it have been too much to ask to pump some smoke into that forest shot? Have some light-beams filtering through those trees? Of course that was the Director and DOP's decision, but it seems a shame to me to waste such a beauty shot. Again keep in mind that the ESB shots are also dynamic, MOVING shots, while the JEDI ones are locked-off and standing still.

[image=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v631/nealnz/SW%20Cinematography/sw9.jpg]
[image=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v631/nealnz/SW%20Cinematography/rotj5.jpg]
Although these are two very different scenes that are shot under very different circumstances (so perhaps judging the lighting may be moot), the framing is still uniquely interesting. In short notice how the framing in the ESB screenshot (top) isolates Luke on the far right hand side and leaves a huge gap of nothingness on frame-left, heightening his isolation and his sense of helplessness. In the JEDI screenshot (below), the frame is crowded with tonnes of actors all standing in a neat row (a classic "Hollywood Group Shot" from the 40's and 50's). This scene is, of course, meant to be about Luke walking the plank, but the shot doesn't focus on his face where his emotions are being played. It's too wide and has even been compositioned "up" to include Chewbacca in the frame, even though he's irrelevant to that "moment" in the drama. Luke doesn't seem isolated or in danger, he looks like he's waiting to get on a bus. A little harsh? Maybe, but I certainly am not a fan of this kind of framing at all.

 

I'm no expert on cinematography, but on that last shot of Luke on the skiff I think there's also some acting problems going on, which surely falls square on the director. Take a look at the guards -- though they might have their weapons up, there's not a hint of any form of watchfulness about them at all. Just because they're in rubber masks shouldn't be an excuse, either; even a hint of a lean forward, or knees bent, would be useful to show that these are, in fact, hired thugs ready to pop these guys off a barge with a moment's notice. And the fact everyone's in binders shouldn't be an issue, either: Jabba might be overconfident, but the Skywalker dude's a Jedi and the Wookiee has enough size and weight to knock people off the barge via sheer momentum.

Also, briefly in terms of framing, I think I've finally figured out what bothers my eye most about this shot: Han leaning around Luke to look at Jabba. Realistically:
(a) He's blind at this point, so he shouldn't even have that level of focus;
(b) Peering closely at it, I think Harrison Ford's trying to inject some realism to the blindness by looking away from Hamill's line of vision, but if Luke's talking in one direction and Threepio's voice is also coming from that direction, a blind person would presumably orient his line of sight in that direction also; he doesn't have to strain to hear what's going on; and
(c) If my impression's wrong and Ford isn't looking away and is in fact looking towards the source of the noises, he shouldn't have to lean around Luke at all -- Jabba's sail barge is massive in comparison to the skiff, and Han's taller than Luke. They're all on a flat level.

Lighting, though: I think part of it is the choice of location. IIRC Jedi's Tatooine was shot in California, while ANH's Tatooine was in Tunisia. I always found the ANH Tatooine far more exotic and alien-looking a biome than the Jedi one; I think there's a real harshness of light in the first movie that makes you feel it is a really, really dry and arid location. That, I think, comes from the geographical location -- Tunisia is genuinely a full-blown desert province with a desert climate. I don't know whether this is accidental or not, but the sunlight in Jedi seems much more forgiving, doesn't wash out colour like the ANH sun does, and allows a nice, safe warm blue sky with clouds.

Speaking of which, the presence of clouds is a continuity error. No, I'm not being fanboyish about this. Tatooine is established in ANH as so arid it's almost Arrakis -- you have to build moisture vaporators in order to obtain water. The fact you have to go to those lengths on a planetary scale suggests precipitation -- i.e. the formation of clouds -- is rare, if not an impossibility if there isn't a sizeable body of open water on the whole planet. And yet we've got all this cloud in the background of that shot. I thought the only film where a Kwisatz Haderach made it rain was David Lynch's Dune.

I think you nailed it on looking at the colours between those shots, though; the Empire ones have almost a gradient of colour between the top and bottom of shot. That is what makes the shot look even more like it's three dimensional on screen, like it has depth, yes? Whereas the Jedi shots don't have that noticeable contrast of colours; the colour scheme is flat, monotone - uniform green for Endor, uniform black for the Death Star. As a result you don't perceive depth as easily in the shot, I think.

 

And you are right in your assumption - The Skiff Sequence was shot in California, not in Tunisia.

 

As to the lighting issue, here's some shots from A New Hope on Tatooine:

[image=http://www.the-two-malcontents.com/wp-content/uploads/070329_skywalker_02.jpg]

[image=http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a269/NoahJohnson/Lukehymen.jpg]

[image=http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/TuskenSITHLord/TD%202870/BackpackRight.jpg]

I'll retract the comment about continuity errors re: clouds on Tatooine, mostly because looking around for shots of Tatooine, it looks like the damn things are everywhere. Including the last shots of Episode III.

Still, I think the point's made. There's something about the light in the Tunisian shots that just isn't duplicated in those of the Jedi shots. Quite possibly it's because in the Jedi shot, there just don't seem to be any shadows at all. I think that's the difference, now: too much bouncing the light around to eliminate stark shadows from the shots, which eliminates contrast. If they tried to get around it by reasoning that the sand on Tatooine reflects light and eliminates shadows, sorry, physics does not work that way.

 

Here are my ten. There are probably some others that I could swap in here but I don't have copies of them in my apartment at the moment. I'll try and get into some detail, but I doubt I will equal NZpoe's eloquence. In no particular order:

Children of Men:

[image=http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i172/nich0272/Childrenofmen.jpg]

While not always the prettiest of shots, there is no denying that it is a technical masterpiece. The first time I watched this film I spent a lot of time afterward trying to work out in my head just how they accomplished it.

From Wikipedia:

Cuarón's initial idea for maintaining continuity during the roadside ambush scene was dismissed by production experts as an "impossible shot to do". Fresh from the visual effects-laden Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Cuarón suggested using computer-generated imagery to film the scene. Lubezki refused to allow it, reminding the director that they had intended to make a film akin to a "raw documentary". Instead, a special camera rig invented by Gary Thieltges of Doggicam Systems was employed, allowing Cuarón to develop the scene as one extended take.[13][62] A vehicle was modified to enable seats to tilt and lower actors out of the way of the camera, and the windshield was designed to tilt out of the way to allow camera movement in and out through the front windscreen. A crew of four, including the DP and camera operator, rode on the roof.[63]

Gladiator:

[image=http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i172/nich0272/Gladiator.jpg]

I have a thing for Ridley Scott. Hands down my favorite director. He's known to be a visual oriented director as opposed to an actor director, to the dismay of some (see Blade Runner BTS). I really couldn't give a damn. For one, he is pretty consistent with casting great actors, also his films are absolutely freaking beautiful. This particular shot is from Gladiator of course, and I would wager is one of the more well known images from the film. Beautifully composed and lit, bobbing slightly out of focus and then back again, the shot floats on a steadicam as opposed to a dolly resulting in an incredibly immersive shot. Looking at the frame I posted one could argue against the overly earthy color pallete as being bland but a single frame simply does not due the shot justice. You need to see it in motion.

Kingdom of Heaven:

[image=http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i172/nich0272/KingdomofHeaven.jpg]

Ridley Scott again. It was really difficult to pic a single frame from this film. Say what you will about some qualities of the film (see Orlando Bloom), but It is hard to deny that this film is anything but gorgious. You could take a still from just about any scene in this movie, frame it and put it on your wall. Visually, the film is a moving painting. I chose this frame for simplicity's sake. Some who have seen the film may not remember this as it is from the directors cut (the far superior version of the film). After a brutal sword fight, the villain kneels defeated prepared to die. Red was an obvious choice and is something we have seen before in Scott's work (See Gladiator tunnel scene). The character straightens slighting allowing a halo light to bathe the top of his head, highlighting the fallen King's lost crown.

Serenity:

[image=http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i172/nich0272/Serenity.jpg]

You can probably tell that I am big fan of long choreographed shots. While this shot from Serenity is not as technically impressive as the long shots from Children of Men, it is impressive and effective none the less. taking us through virtually every major section of the ship, and in the process introducing us to all of the main characters, the shot serves as one of the most memorable of the film. While technically not a single take, there is a discreet cut hidden in a whip pan, the shot also serves as a testament to the steadicam operator whose challenges include walking backwards up stairs while maintaining an impeccably smooth track.

The Shawshank Redemption:

 

Don't want to drift off topic, but the Gladiator sequence referred to above seems to use a trick that NZPoe mentioned in his defence of the "President's speech" sequence in Armageddon: how all the shots in that scene are moving bar one -- the shot of Billy Bob Thornton, which is taken absolutely still.

This part of the Gladiator sequence does something similar: that shot of "hands through the wheat" ends abruptly, cutting to a blue-rinsed, motionless closeup of Russell Crowe in his armour. After the movement and colour in the earlier sequence, it's a jolt to the system; I remember that even on first watching the film.

At first I ascribed the shot to poor filmmaking (because it jarred me rather than flowed) but on reflection I think I can see what he was going for: a visual way to express "snapping back to reality". Maximus, the character, is longing for, daydreaming, of home, when he's abruptly brought out of his reverie. The next shot sort-of continues the theme: Maximus watches a bird that flutters off a tree and away, but the camera is locked still once more; he doesn't re-enter the dream, he's waking up from the dream.

On another of those selections, Shawshank Redemption is a beautiful film, no doubt about it. My personal favourite in terms of meaningful lighting is a few minutes before Andy escapes -- one where Red approaches him sitting in the full shadow from the wall of the prison, the whole frame cut in half by a diagonal shadowline. Red joins Andy; they talk; Andy gets up; they move a little way into the yard; then we cut back to that shot once more and Andy's moved right out into the light ... while Red, torn, stands right in the centre of the shot, half in shadow, half in light. Obvious, but I like obvious

 

I've always loved this shot (and I had no hard time feeling for Faramir, his performance was great). I had no idea about all that other stuff you mentioned ... about Gandalf being a near-God ... that makes this shot extremely more powerful.

 

I agree with you totally on this - if you notice on the soundtrack, the sound subtly, but deliberately, abruptly cuts the way the vision does. If they had kept the atmos track from the first shot running, the jump in the cut would not have been as jarring as it was - they seem to have deliberately made it jarring and not using the cliche of having Maximus doing something like "opening his eyes in ECU and we hear a soft bassy WHUMPH in the soundtrack to suggest he's woken from a daydream" or anything like that.

Modern filmmaking techniques help us make slicker, smoother, surrounding films, but sometimes the old fashioned trick of a jump cut can really nail you, psychologically, to the screen. Stanley Kubrick used this technique ALL the time and he did it better than nobody else in my humble opinion.

- edit -

PS - kudos on the Gandalf shot! I'd totally forgotten about that! It's spectacular and so damn painterly!

 

I wanted to post on the forum a CD I have just released, it is a compilation of interviews on HD camera models, including the RED ONE. Whether you're looking for more technical expertise, deciding between cameras for a shoot, or deciding on a purchase, the commercial directors and cinematographers I spoke with have revealed their years of technical expertise shooting on HD. It's a resource of uncharted information---to maximize all that the camera can do and unleash its full potential!
Visit http://www.hdcameracomparisonguide.com/


"There are several ways to deal with the RED's footage. Most of the main line non-linear editors have come up with methods for dealing with the work flow. I do think that over time, really, the RED was designed really to be a digital cinema camera. I think in a lot of cases the issue arose because of the price point on the camera. The camera came out at $17,500 which was cheaper than a lot of HD cameras. So I think you're going to see a lot of people who jumped on the band wagon, really thought it was the future, certainly the highest resolution image sensor that had come out. I like the idea that RED is about, power to the people, innovation, which is all great stuff.

But any time you have a raw image coming into a system, by the way this is not just the RED, it's also the SI-2K. Most people don't use the ARRI, the D-21 as a raw camera. Most people take that out and they feed it to HDCAM SR as 10 bit log. So it's already a bitmap when they're shooting. I don't personally know of any projects where the ARRI D-20 or the D-21 where it was used in raw mode, I'm sure there must be some.

But the SI-2K, and the RED are sort of both this raw workflow, by keeping it raw you're dealing with a much smaller file than you would if you were shooting in a conventional way, if you had a camera with three 4k sensors, each one creating a full 4k color channel image you'd have a massive, massive file to deal with. So the idea with this Bayer sensor is if you do not de-Bayer the material inside the camera and you store it, you're dealing with a nice, small, basically one third of the actual size of what the image would be in a conventional camera. So then you store that, now you take that into a post-production process. No matter whose post-production process by the way, it doesn't matter. At some point you need to demosaic that footage.

I work with Iridas SpeedGrade for instance, so I can load raw directly. I got a system where I have the proper display cards in Iridas' case. And video display cards support a lot of that processing that Iridas needs to do to use raw footage in real time. So I can literally do that demosaic on the fly. However you still have to do the demosaic at some point. Even if I take it into speed grade as raw, at some point I have to render it out as a flattened pixel based image. And that's an added step relative to shooting HDCAM, HDCAM SR, XDCAM, whatever it is that you want to shoot. Those are all flattened images, the pixels are all there. By the way I'm not talking about temporal compression versus iframe compression here, I'm just talking about whether or not the uncorrelated sensor data has been sort of committed.

So I think in a lot of cases, what's going to happen is people who have work flows that are traditionally video. There's a large part of the market that does corporate work, that's doing work for the web, that are doing projects with content that have purposes for other things in digital cinema who will find the extra steps introduced by this raw acquisition. Whether it's the RED or the SI or whatever. I think in a lot of these cases they will find that is a cumbersome work flow for anything other than digital cinema.

The advantage of raw for digital cinema is that you have a lot more image control, and with narrative film or something of that nature that image control can really, really be key to making your film work. It certainly gives you some leeway in dynamic range. However, if you're making corp

 

Well....that was kinda spammy, but it sure was interesting!